Bazemore v. Stephenson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bazemore v. Stephenson

100 S.E. 234, 24 Ga. App. 180, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 483

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 18, 1919

Docket10531

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 234 (Bazemore v. Stephenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bazemore v. Stephenson, 100 S.E. 234, 24 Ga. App. 180, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 483 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinions

Broyles, P. J.

The sole question in this case is whether the evidence authorized a finding by the jury that the defendant wilfully and intentionally drove his automobile against the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding, so as to constitute such a malicious tort as would come within subdivision sec. 17 a (2) of the bankruptcy act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat. 550, U.. S. Comp. St. § 9601). The records fails to disclose any evidence which would have authorized such a finding. The plaintiff himself testified in effect that he did not know and could not say that the defendant deliberately or intentionally did so. The court, therefore, did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant. See, in this connection, Collier on Bankruptcy (11th ed.), 402, 441; Tinker v. Coldwell, 193 U. S. 473, 481 (24 Sup. Ct. 505, 48 L. ed. 758); 11 Am. B. R. 568).

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Broyles, P. J.

The sole question in this case is whether the evidence authorized a finding by the jury that the defendant wilfully and intentionally drove his automobile against the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding, so as to constitute such a malicious tort as would come within subdivision sec. 17 a (2) of the bankruptcy act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat. 550, U.. S. Comp. St. § 9601). The records fails to disclose any evidence which would have authorized such a finding. The plaintiff himself testified in effect that he did not know and could not say that the defendant deliberately or intentionally did so. The court, therefore, did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant. See, in this connection, Collier on Bankruptcy (11th ed.), 402, 441; Tinker v. Coldwell, 193 U. S. 473, 481 (24 Sup. Ct. 505, 48 L. ed. 758); 11 Am. B. R. 568).

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 234, 24 Ga. App. 180, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bazemore-v-stephenson-gactapp-1919.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack